Hamilton v. Natrona County Educ. Ass'n

• Citation: 901 P.2d 381
• Decision Date: 08 August 1995
• Docket Number: No. 94-135,94-135
• Parties: 102 Ed. Law Rep. 1198 Carey HAMILTON, and Mel Hamilton, individually and in his capacity as next friend of Derek Hamilton and Zella Hamilton, minors; and Malik Hamilton, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. NATRONA COUNTY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated association, Appellee (Defendant).
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming

Page 381

901 P.2d 381

102 Ed. Law Rep. 1198

Carey HAMILTON, and Mel Hamilton, individually and in his capacity as next friend of Derek Hamilton and Zella Hamilton, minors; and Malik Hamilton, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. NATRONA COUNTY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated association, Appellee (Defendant).

No. 94-135.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Aug. 8, 1995.

Patrick Dixon of Dixon & Despain, Casper, for appellants.

Rex O. Arney and Todd H. Hambrick of Murane & Bostwick, Casper, for appellee.

Before GOLDEN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, TAYLOR and LEHMAN, JJ.

GOLDEN, Chief Justice.

Appellant Carey Hamilton (Carey) and members of her family (Hamiltons) filed a suit against appellee Natrona County Education Association (NCEA) to recover damages for injuries Carey suffered at a party given by the president of NCEA. Concluding NCEA owed no duty of care to Carey and her family members and no legal basis for liability existed, the district court granted We affirm.

summary judgment to NCEA and the Hamiltons appeal.

The Hamiltons present these issues:

A. Was Davis acting within the scope of her authority in organizing and hosting the party, so as to impose vicarious liability on the NCEA?

B. Should Wyoming adopt the theory of enterprise liability so as to hold the NCEA legally responsible for this activity?

C. Should the doctrine of apparent authority be applied to extend liability to the NCEA?

D. Did there exist genuine issues of material fact which prevented summary judgment?

NCEA presents only one issue:

1. Did the trial court err by determining that the NCEA had no duty?

FACTS

NCEA, a private non-profit corporation, is a voluntary association of classroom teachers located within the Natrona County School District. Affiliated with state and national organizations, it provides contract negotiations, grievance representation, lobbying, and other support for its members. NCEA also has a social committee headed by a chairperson which occasionally sponsors social functions.

In June of 1992, Nancy Duitscher Davis (Duitscher) and Rodney L. Davis (Davis), then dating, but now married, held an outdoor party at Davis' home in Evansville, Wyoming. Duitscher, the president of NCEA, and Davis, a county extension agent, each extended invitations to co-workers, friends, and neighbors. Duitscher prepared a written invitation addressed to "old and new NCEA Executive Board members" (Board). During the party, the elevated deck attached to the Davis home collapsed. At the time of the collapse, about ten or twelve people were on it, including Carey Hamilton, who fell more than eight feet and sustained a fractured vertebrae and other injuries.

Carey's husband, Mel, had been elected to the Board, his term just beginning that June. Duitscher had called Mel during business hours at the school where he taught and told him the "board members were going to get together." During that call, Mel expressed interest to Duitscher in attending a social function, which would permit him to speak to the board member, Karla Downing, whom he was replacing. Carey and Mel attended the party believing it to be an NCEA function. Of the thirty-five other people who attended the party, only five were current or former members of the Board. Seventeen of the guests were Davis' co-workers and their families.

On September 28, 1993, Carey and her family members filed a negligence suit against NCEA, claiming NCEA, "as sponsor, promoter, organizer and host of this business/social function owed a duty of care to its invitees". The Hamiltons claimed the duty had been breached by NCEA's failure to inspect the premises or warn of the defective deck and such negligence had caused personal injury, emotional distress and loss of consortium damages. NCEA moved for summary judgment, asserting no material issues of fact existed as to whether NCEA had sponsored or authorized the party because it was Duitscher's private party, NCEA had not requested, approved, or paid for any of it, and therefore, as a matter of law, no duty was owed to Carey by NCEA. The Hamiltons claimed material questions of fact existed concerning whether NCEA was directly liable because it had sponsored the party or whether NCEA was vicariously liable under either respondeat superior, enterprise liability, or apparent authority theories precluding summary judgment. The district court granted NCEA's motion for summary judgment and this appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment will be sustained only if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the prevailing party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Lyden v. Winer, 878 P.2d 516, 518 (Wyo.1994). A material fact is one that establishes or refutes an essential element of a cause of action

                or a defense asserted by a party.  Lyden, 878 P.2d at 518.   If the moving party presents supporting summary judgment materials demonstrating no genuine issue of material fact exists, the burden is shifted to the non-moving party to present appropriate supporting materials posing a genuine issue of a material fact for trial.  Downen v. Sinclair Oil Corp., 887 P.2d 515, 519 (Wyo.1994).  On appeal, this court examines the entire record in the light most favorable to the party who opposed the motion, affording to that party all favorable inferences which may be drawn from the materials either supporting or opposing the motion.  Lyden, 878 P.2d at 518.   If a dispute exists over a material fact which leads to conflicting interpretations or if reasonable minds might differ, then summary judgment is improper.  Lyden, 878 P.2d at 518
                

DISCUSSION

Direct Liability-Duty

While usually duty is a question of law, Hamiltons assert duty springs from the relationship between the parties and when that relationship is in dispute, duty is a question of fact precluding summary judgment. Until the jury determines the specific issue as to whether the NCEA sponsored the June 6, 1992, party or whether it was a private party hosted by Davis, they reason it was error to grant summary judgment.

In stating a cause of action for negligence, the complaint must allege the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty, and the plaintiff's injury was proximately caused by the breach. Downen, 887 P.2d at 520. "Essential to any negligence cause of action is proof of facts which impose a duty upon defendant. The question of the existence of a duty is a matter of law for the court to decide." Goodrich v. Seamands, 870 P.2d 1061, 1064 (Wyo.1994), citing ABC Builders, Inc. v. Phillips, 632 P.2d 925, 931-32 (Wyo.1981). A duty may arise by contract, statute, common law, or when the relationship of the parties is such that the law imposes an obligation on the defendant to act reasonably for the protection of the plaintiff. Goodrich, 870 P.2d at 1064; Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Donahue, 674 P.2d 1276, 1280 (Wyo.1983).

In moving for summary judgment, NCEA provided affidavits and minutes of NCEA executive board meetings indicating NCEA did not approve, plan for, or pay for any part of the party. The written invitation was addressed as from "Rod and I" and made no claim the party was an NCEA function. The party was held at a nonmember's home who testified it was his and Duitscher's private party for the couple's friends, neighbors, and associates. Duitscher also testified it was a private party.

In response, the Hamiltons provided no evidence directly disputing the facts presented, but instead, pointing to the NCEA bylaws directing the president "shall have the responsibility of maintaining good rapport with the membership", they contend it can be inferred Duitscher was acting for the NCEA. Their specific evidence supporting the inference is provided by an affidavit testifying a party was discussed at an NCEA meeting followed shortly afterwards by Duitscher's invitations addressed to "board members". Further, they say Duitscher used the school mail system authorized for NCEA use and listed her office phone number for responses, actions more suited to an NCEA social function rather than a private party.

WYO. RULE OF CIV.PROC. 56(e) states:

When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleading, but the adverse party's response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the adverse party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party.

See also Downen, 887 P.2d at 519.

The specific facts provided by the Hamiltons raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether NCEA sponsored the party only if Duitscher, as president, acted for the NCEA. Under NCEA's organizational bylaws, the president does have prime responsibility for Without specific facts disputing evidence that NCEA took no action to authorize a party, the only reasonable inference to be drawn is that NCEA did not approve or sponsor the party. Without evidence NCEA took action to sponsor the party, a duty on its part did not arise. Without such a duty, NCEA cannot be liable to Duitscher's guest on a negligence theory. The district court appropriately granted summary judgment on this issue.

good rapport; however, only the executive board can approve expenditures for NCEA activities. That the board did not approve any payment for the party is undisputed. NCEA also had a social committee for those functions which were NCEA-sponsored and that the committee was not involved in organizing this party is undisputed. Also undisputed is that the school mail was frequently used for personal mail and the Hamiltons provide no evidence Duitscher was not permitted to accept personal phone calls at her office number. Her home phone number was also listed on the invitation.

Vicarious Liability

Hamiltons claim NCEA is vicariously liable for...